For my former coworkers, the lack of a paycheck during the furlough is less upsetting than getting ANOTHER zero percent pay raise for 2019.

I think Texas is on our 8th year of 0% pay raise - I'm not counting the 2% "raise" that matched the 2% increased (mandatory) employee pension contribution. The pension being underfunded is entirely the fault of the Legislature chronically underpaying their share for decades.

Don't feel bad. My state drastically over-promised on pensions also, so the state is in massive debt because of it. The rest of we working taxpayers are now paying for it with a couple large tax increases in recent years rather than cutting the over-promised pensions.

Sol, I thought you were an American and knew how things worked in this country. Aren't you familiar with the electoral college?

Then by all means, feel free to repeat ad nauseam that the electoral college voted for Trump, but you should probably stop saying that Americans voted for him. Most of us did not. Millions more Americans voted against him than for him.

Agreed! The wall is LONG overdue. Americans voted for Trump, and the wall was a HUGE point of his campaign.

The cost of a wall is peanuts compared to the estimated $10 TRILLION dollar cost of illegal immigration.

The wall is worthless. Most "illegal immigrants" entered at a checkpoint on a visa, then never left.

It's a distraction.

The people who understand the situation know we need a wall. As the head of border security stated, no one can tell you with a straight face that we don't need a wall. I think he knows better than you. LOL

Like I said, it's peanuts compared to the cost of illegal immigration, and it's not meant to be the ONLY solution, yet it is an important one.

Sol, I thought you were an American and knew how things worked in this country. Aren't you familiar with the electoral college?

Then by all means, feel free to repeat ad nauseam that the electoral college voted for Trump, but you should probably stop saying that Americans voted for him. Most of us did not. Millions more Americans voted against him than for him.

That's the rules of the game. And that's all that really matters, even though you don't like to hear it. I'm an independent, so I'm not closely walking a party line as so many of you do, but immigration happens to be one of the few thing I agree with Trump on for the most part, not necessarily 100%, but at least he's stronger on border security and immigration than what your dear Hillary would have been.

So if Trump is really serious about refusing to sign any budget that doesn't include five billion dollars of American taxpayer money for a useless border wall, instead of any sort of effective border security, how will the shut down get resolved?

There's always room for compromise, right? Can Schumer offer him the $5b in exchange for a DACA fix and an inflation-matching pay increase for federal employees and releasing his tax returns?

Let's not forget that Trump already turned down $25billion for a border wall and a DACA fix, when his party had full control of congress. In retrospect, I suspect that the optics of a fully republican-controlled congress being unable to pass a budget was the only thing keeping Trump from shutting down the government last year too. I suspect that as soon as he had Democrats coming into power that he could try to cast as the villains in this conflict, he suddenly felt freed to be a lot more obstructionist about the regular business of government. Of course, the current shutdown also happened in a fully republican-controlled congress, but if it drags on long enough I'm sure he will try to blame the incoming democratic majority for the problems the former republican majority created.

I would argue that government pensions are not generous. Just better than that available in private industry as this has been cut left and right . 401k was the worst thing that ever happened. Placed retirement as the responsibility of the employee instead of the company. Fortunately, the government was not so quick to change. I think that will eventually change, but I'll likely be grandfathered in.

That's the rules of the game. And that's all that really matters, even though you don't like to hear it.

I know the rules and I agree Trump is the duly elected President. I don't mind hearing that.

I DO mind hearing what you said, which is that American voted for him. Americans are people, and they did not vote for him. Most of them voted for someone else, by a wide margin, and yet you have repeatedly claimed that Americans voted for him. They did not. The electoral college, representing a rural minority of the country, voted for him.

You should stop lying about this. It's kind of pissing me off, because it suggests that most Americans are ignorant, racist, xenophobic rubes who thought electing a lifelong con man from Queens with no public service experience and a history of fraud to lead our country would be a good idea. Most of us are not, and did not. You can stop claiming otherwise any time now.

The wall is worthless. Most "illegal immigrants" entered at a checkpoint on a visa, then never left.

It's a distraction.

The people who understand the situation know we need a wall. As the head of border security stated, no one can tell you with a straight face that we don't need a wall. I think he knows better than you. LOL

Like I said, it's peanuts compared to the cost of illegal immigration, and it's not meant to be the ONLY solution, yet it is an important one.

LOL, the only "authority" you can cite is the guy mandated to do so by his boss.

ETA: I read it as him want to cut funding for current retirees. If he means future retirees, that's already happened, as sol mentions.

My comment specifically said "existing" retirees, so I'm not sure why you would say "if he means future retirees".

Exactly what existing retiree's? Just curious who you have your beef with and why?

I thought my post was pretty clear, not sure why multiple people have difficulty with it. I said existing retirees and generous government pensions. What is so difficult to understand?

I think your post was very clear, but some people had difficulty believing you actually meant what you said. I think they found it easier to believe that you misspoke than that you were advocating for the US Government to repudiate its formal agreements with federal retirees.

For some Americans, the belief that the United States of America will live up to its formal obligations and follow the rule of law is a foundation of government and society. Some Americans would assert that it is what makes our fiat currency the world's reserve currency and our full faith and credit bonds worth having despite our already high level of debt. Some economists might point out that any doubts about the US Government's willingness to meet its obligations would translate into countries demanding higher interest rates to buy our government debt, making an already difficult budget situation far worse. Clearly, not everyone believes these things.

Agreed! The wall is LONG overdue. Americans voted for Trump, and the wall was a HUGE point of his campaign.

The cost of a wall is peanuts compared to the estimated $10 TRILLION dollar cost of illegal immigration.

The wall is worthless. Most "illegal immigrants" entered at a checkpoint on a visa, then never left.

It's a distraction.

The people who understand the situation know we need a wall. As the head of border security stated, no one can tell you with a straight face that we don't need a wall. I think he knows better than you. LOL

Like I said, it's peanuts compared to the cost of illegal immigration, and it's not meant to be the ONLY solution, yet it is an important one.

I would argue that government pensions are not generous. Just better than that available in private industry as this has been cut left and right . 401k was the worst thing that ever happened. Placed retirement as the responsibility of the employee instead of the company. Fortunately, the government was not so quick to change. I think that will eventually change, but I'll likely be grandfathered in.

I would argue that government pensions are not generous. Just better than that available in private industry as this has been cut left and right .

You mean because the government pensions are bailed out by tax hikes on workers, most who are not government workers themselves. The private industry can't take more of my tax dollars to pay their retirees the way the government does.

Agreed! The wall is LONG overdue. Americans voted for Trump, and the wall was a HUGE point of his campaign.

The cost of a wall is peanuts compared to the estimated $10 TRILLION dollar cost of illegal immigration.

The wall is worthless. Most "illegal immigrants" entered at a checkpoint on a visa, then never left.

It's a distraction.

The people who understand the situation know we need a wall. As the head of border security stated, no one can tell you with a straight face that we don't need a wall. I think he knows better than you. LOL

Like I said, it's peanuts compared to the cost of illegal immigration, and it's not meant to be the ONLY solution, yet it is an important one.

I would argue that government pensions are not generous. Just better than that available in private industry as this has been cut left and right . 401k was the worst thing that ever happened. Placed retirement as the responsibility of the employee instead of the company. Fortunately, the government was not so quick to change. I think that will eventually change, but I'll likely be grandfathered in.

I started as a DoD civilian earlier this year so 4.4% of my paycheck is set aside for my pension (FERS). The basics are you get 1.1% for every year worked. So if I were to work 30 years I would get 33% of my final pay. Under the old system they only took 0.85%. So frankly it's a terrible deal now and even if I were to end up working as a fed for a while I will definitely be taking my contributions as a lump sum rather than a pension. I can do a whole lot better sticking that money in VTSAX than letting the government invest it in T-Bills.

The plus side is a 5% 401k match. That I'm taking full advantage of. But the pension portion is not a good deal now. The change only occurred in the last few years so the vast majority of federal employees are grandfathered in to pay less than 1% out of their paycheck.

My military pension through the National Guard, even though I can't collect until I'm 60 works out pretty well. I figure it will be around $15k a year which isn't bad for what has mostly been part-time work. I get 2% for every year of equivalent active duty, so by the time I retire it might only be the equivalent of 6-7 years eve if I spend 30 years in uniform. Had I stuck with the old system (no 401k match) it would be a 2.5% multiplier.

I would argue that government pensions are not generous. Just better than that available in private industry as this has been cut left and right . 401k was the worst thing that ever happened. Placed retirement as the responsibility of the employee instead of the company. Fortunately, the government was not so quick to change. I think that will eventually change, but I'll likely be grandfathered in.

The fact that you seem to be complete unaware of all of the federal pension reforms since then leads me to believe that you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not really listening to you anymore, if you can't even be bothered to do 30 seconds of basic internet research before making a fool of yourself.

You mean because the government pensions are bailed out by tax hikes on workers, most who are not government workers themselves. The private industry can't take more of my tax dollars to pay their retirees the way the government does.

I'm sure you're aware that private industry gets government bailout money, and government pensions do not? When the federal pension program needs funds, it sells bonds. Your taxes do not support federal pensions.

By the reasoning you appear to be espousing, private industry shouldn't be getting bailout money, right? Like the $17billion that GM got, largely for pensions? Or the $85billion for AIG? Because those are literally your tax dollars being spent to bail out the gross mismanagement of private for-profit corporations. Unlike the federal pension system.

One HUGE thing that folks fail to realize when it comes to Federal employees vs the private sector is that most Federal employees have advanced degrees, whereas the private sector encompasses part time employees at Wendy's or Wal-Mart. It is comparing apples to oranges. If the comparison was a comparison of private sector employees vs Federal employees, both with advanced degrees, it would be readily apparent the ridiculous wages paid to Federal employees.

I would argue that government pensions are not generous. Just better than that available in private industry as this has been cut left and right . 401k was the worst thing that ever happened. Placed retirement as the responsibility of the employee instead of the company. Fortunately, the government was not so quick to change. I think that will eventually change, but I'll likely be grandfathered in.

The commentary on the article tears the methodology apart pretty darn effectively. Mr. Biggs does a lot of hand waving sandbagging and just making up numbers. He also only uses the "entire very long career with the Feds" as an example - workers who are there a shorter time (or retire before 62 without 30+ years of service) see a significant penalty, if they get a FERS pension at all. Et cetera.

The fact that you seem to be complete unaware of all of the federal pension reforms since then leads me to believe that you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not really listening to you anymore, if you can't even be bothered to do 30 seconds of basic internet research before making a fool of yourself.

yes what sol said. First of all make sure you understand what current Federal pensions ARE. The last remaining CSRS person at my office is supposed to retire tomorrow (not sure how that works since the folks who do that paperwork are furloughed). This is the old system, discontinued decades ago which has the stereotypical generous pension. I have a TSP which is like a 401k. Because I read this forum I contribute the max. At any rate, yes gov has good pensions and benefits thats one of the reasons I signed on the dotted line to work there. Of course I also work rotating 24 hour shift so it's not all upsides. In my field the gov is the largest employer and probably the most desirable. We easily have 250+ new grads for any entry level opening. So yea, gov is best benfits and you get your pick of the best people. Congradulations tax payer, you're getting the best working for you. I guess you could offer us shitty benefits and get crappy people but is that what you want for public safety?

I'm currently funded a few months in advance, so this one won't hurt me directly unless it extends into February, but the last furlough affected my entire program, and we had to replan the entire program due to a series of short delays in starting the program. It took over 25 man-months to reschedule and re-budget the program to still fit within the constraints. It is NOT a matter of just shifting everything a few weeks. That's $0.5Million just to replan. It doesn't count all the people waiting to hear what they can and cannot do under the new program. It's an extremely inefficient way to do business.

In 2016, Congressional pay was $174,000 per year, which, at an 80% rate, equates to a lifelong pension benefit of $139,200. All benefits are taxpayer-funded.

1 term and you get pension for life. Not to shabby.

I also find it disturbing how the left has to rely on insults when discussing anything they don't agree with. One particular comment really struck out at me regarding people who voted for Trump.

Quote

.... suggests that most Americans are ignorant, racist, xenophobic rubes who thought electing a lifelong con man from Queens with no public service experience and a history of fraud to lead our country would be a good idea. . .

To say that over 45% of the voting population is " ignorant, racist, xenophobic rubes" sounds great in an echo chamber but instead stifles any discussion. BTW, based on the numbers above, I guess over half of the people voted against Hillary. Interesting.

It is unfortunate that the far left throws out comments like racist and ignorant far too often when having a discussion with anyone that disagrees with them. Instead of using convincing arguments that help sway a person's views ad hominem attacks are flung and no one benefits. And BTW, far left is not always the best and maybe far left has a bit to learn from those with different view points.

Disclaimer: I am not a republican. I have never been a republican. I have learned to add such a disclaimer on this forum so as to avoid insults being flung my way.

Agreed! The wall is LONG overdue. Americans voted for Trump, and the wall was a HUGE point of his campaign.

The cost of a wall is peanuts compared to the estimated $10 TRILLION dollar cost of illegal immigration.

The liberal talking point is that the wall isn't the only solution and doesn't solve all of the problems. It's not supposed to. Those other things are also important as well, but they don't negate the necessity for the wall. I would gladly pay more taxes to build the wall and increase border security, enforce existing immigration law, and stepping up efforts to deport illegals. It sure beats the astronomical cost of illegal aliens over the long term who suck much more out of the system than they even begin to contribute (as shown by the Heritage study.)

Mexico will pay for the wallMexico will pay for the wallMexico will pay for the wallRinse and Repeat

That's all I heard during the campaign. I do not want one cent of my tax dollars going for a stupid f*cking wall that WE DON'T NEED! If that stupid f*cking tangerine sh*tdemon sitting in the WH wants it so badly then he needs to live up to his promise and make Mexico, not us, pay for it.

In 2016, Congressional pay was $174,000 per year, which, at an 80% rate, equates to a lifelong pension benefit of $139,200. All benefits are taxpayer-funded.

1 term and you get pension for life. Not to shabby.

:sigh:

I'm no particular defender of Congress and I love to hate on congresspeople as much as the next Righteously Indignant Citizen, but what you wrote is highly misleading, esp if you are implying that it is typical for 1) a MoC to receive a 139K/year pension; 2) that they receive this type of pension even if they serve one term. That is completely inaccurate, not to mention mathematically impossible (b/c the pension is based on years worked).

Congress has fairly similar pensions to those of civilian feds (who receive 1.1% x average of their 3 high salary), but they have a more generous multiplier (1.7% for the first 20 years of service). The exceptions are those super-oldsters who were elected under the long-defunct and much more generous former system (discontinued in the early 1980s, but it continues to strangely obsess people, even if they were born after it was changed).

Also, while a senator would be vested in their pension after 1 term, a house member would have to serve the equivalent of 3 terms to meet the 5 year vesting requirement. So a house member who was booted after 2 terms would not be eligible for a pension. A senator who was voted out after 1 term would be eligible for a pension of about 18,000/year (174x1.7%x6), but not until they reached full pension age (which would be 62, if that was their only federal employment).

To say that over 45% of the voting population is " ignorant, racist, xenophobic rubes" sounds great in an echo chamber

Did I say that?

I said that DreamFIRE's contention that most Americans voted for a wall suggests that those people are ignorant, racist, xenophobic rubes. Because the wall is a symbol of ignorant, racist, xenophobia and not a rational response to illegal immigration. You can certainly want to reduce illegal immigration without being those things, but I don't think you can support a wall without being those things.

The wall is a symbol of racism and xenophobia perpetuated by ignorant people who do not understand our nation's immigration problems. It's an overly simplified rally-chant style "solution" to a complex problem with generations of backstory. A wall will not slow the flow of illegal immigrants into America, because a tiny tiny fraction of them cross the desert in the places that a wall would go. A wall will not stop the flow of drugs, which mostly come and go via main ports of entry, or ships. It will not reduce the incentive for immigrants to come to America to seek work, and it will not alleviate the conditions that motivate people to leave their home country's in the first place.

If you want to spend $5 billion on securing the border, building a border wall is about number six on the list of most effective ways to do it. The only reason people like it is because it's a symbol of their xenophobia, in a way that more effective policies like enforcing labor laws are not. The wall is a giant middle finger to refugees, an art installation that says "America hates you."

So yea, I think I can safely stand by my assertion. I did not say that Americans are ignorant, racist, xenophobic rubes, in facts I said that most Americans are not. I said that the people who are stuck on the wall as a symbol of racism and xenophobia but an ineffective deterrent are ignorant and racist and xenophobic rubes. It's DreamFIRE who tried to suggest that this was most of us.

Like most Democrats, I have no problem with "securing the border" and I've supported immigration reform for decades now. Let's not forget that it was republicans who have drowned the last four immigration reform bills in a row, because they included some form of a pathway to citizenship for people who are already in America, have no criminal record, have found employment, and want to become full American citizens.

A wall will not slow the flow of illegal immigrants into America, because a tiny tiny fraction of them cross the desert in the places that a wall would go. A wall will not stop the flow of drugs, which mostly come and go via main ports of entry, or ships.

I can attest that Sol is correct; exactly zero of the drugs and people I have interdicted would have been stopped by a wall. Because all this happened, you know, on the ocean. Perhaps what we need is ocean walls! We could call Hadrian up, and ask him how walls function. Or, maybe Qin Shi Huang. Or, André Maginot. I'm sure they'd all offer sage advice.

Agreed! The wall is LONG overdue. Americans voted for Trump, and the wall was a HUGE point of his campaign.

The cost of a wall is peanuts compared to the estimated $10 TRILLION dollar cost of illegal immigration.

The liberal talking point is that the wall isn't the only solution and doesn't solve all of the problems. It's not supposed to. Those other things are also important as well, but they don't negate the necessity for the wall. I would gladly pay more taxes to build the wall and increase border security, enforce existing immigration law, and stepping up efforts to deport illegals. It sure beats the astronomical cost of illegal aliens over the long term who suck much more out of the system than they even begin to contribute (as shown by the Heritage study.)

Mexico will pay for the wallMexico will pay for the wallMexico will pay for the wallRinse and Repeat

That's all I heard during the campaign. I do not want one cent of my tax dollars going for a stupid f*cking wall that WE DON'T NEED! If that stupid f*cking tangerine sh*tdemon sitting in the WH wants it so badly then he needs to live up to his promise and make Mexico, not us, pay for it.

To say that over 45% of the voting population is " ignorant, racist, xenophobic rubes" sounds great in an echo chamber

Did I say that?

I said that DreamFIRE's contention that most Americans voted for a wall suggests that those people are ignorant, racist, xenophobic rubes. Because the wall is a symbol of ignorant, racist, xenophobia and not a rational response to illegal immigration. You can certainly want to reduce illegal immigration without being those things, but I don't think you can support a wall without being those things.

The wall is a symbol of racism and xenophobia perpetuated by ignorant people who do not understand our nation's immigration problems. It's an overly simplified rally-chant style "solution" to a complex problem with generations of backstory. A wall will not slow the flow of illegal immigrants into America, because a tiny tiny fraction of them cross the desert in the places that a wall would go. A wall will not stop the flow of drugs, which mostly come and go via main ports of entry, or ships. It will not reduce the incentive for immigrants to come to America to seek work, and it will not alleviate the conditions that motivate people to leave their home country's in the first place.

If you want to spend $5 billion on securing the border, building a border wall is about number six on the list of most effective ways to do it. The only reason people like it is because it's a symbol of their xenophobia, in a way that more effective policies like enforcing labor laws are not. The wall is a giant middle finger to refugees, an art installation that says "America hates you."

So yea, I think I can safely stand by my assertion. I did not say that Americans are ignorant, racist, xenophobic rubes, in facts I said that most Americans are not. I said that the people who are stuck on the wall as a symbol of racism and xenophobia but an ineffective deterrent are ignorant and racist and xenophobic rubes. It's DreamFIRE who tried to suggest that this was most of us.

Like most Democrats, I have no problem with "securing the border" and I've supported immigration reform for decades now. Let's not forget that it was republicans who have drowned the last four immigration reform bills in a row, because they included some form of a pathway to citizenship for people who are already in America, have no criminal record, have found employment, and want to become full American citizens.

Is it possible that the right could view the wall as a symbol of America's sovereignty? It's pretty hard to believe that you guys have 60M ignorant, racist xenophobic rubes down there.

To say that over 45% of the voting population is " ignorant, racist, xenophobic rubes" sounds great in an echo chamber

Did I say that?

I said that DreamFIRE's contention that most Americans voted for a wall suggests that those people are ignorant, racist, xenophobic rubes. Because the wall is a symbol of ignorant, racist, xenophobia and not a rational response to illegal immigration. You can certainly want to reduce illegal immigration without being those things, but I don't think you can support a wall without being those things.

The wall is a symbol of racism and xenophobia perpetuated by ignorant people who do not understand our nation's immigration problems. It's an overly simplified rally-chant style "solution" to a complex problem with generations of backstory. A wall will not slow the flow of illegal immigrants into America, because a tiny tiny fraction of them cross the desert in the places that a wall would go. A wall will not stop the flow of drugs, which mostly come and go via main ports of entry, or ships. It will not reduce the incentive for immigrants to come to America to seek work, and it will not alleviate the conditions that motivate people to leave their home country's in the first place.

If you want to spend $5 billion on securing the border, building a border wall is about number six on the list of most effective ways to do it. The only reason people like it is because it's a symbol of their xenophobia, in a way that more effective policies like enforcing labor laws are not. The wall is a giant middle finger to refugees, an art installation that says "America hates you."

So yea, I think I can safely stand by my assertion. I did not say that Americans are ignorant, racist, xenophobic rubes, in facts I said that most Americans are not. I said that the people who are stuck on the wall as a symbol of racism and xenophobia but an ineffective deterrent are ignorant and racist and xenophobic rubes. It's DreamFIRE who tried to suggest that this was most of us.

Like most Democrats, I have no problem with "securing the border" and I've supported immigration reform for decades now. Let's not forget that it was republicans who have drowned the last four immigration reform bills in a row, because they included some form of a pathway to citizenship for people who are already in America, have no criminal record, have found employment, and want to become full American citizens.

Sol,You are actually a big contributor in spewing insults on the right shutting down any real discussion. It is great for riling up your own base but harms the discussion at hand. You are a very intelligent guy but so far pressed against the liberal side of the wall you lose sight of other people and other views. Open discussion is extremely important in progress and change. It can never occur when the go to conversation is insults. BTW, words like racism, xenophobia, misogyny are common go to terms for the far left.

A wall will not slow the flow of illegal immigrants into America, because a tiny tiny fraction of them cross the desert in the places that a wall would go. A wall will not stop the flow of drugs, which mostly come and go via main ports of entry, or ships.

I can attest that Sol is correct; exactly zero of the drugs and people I have interdicted would have been stopped by a wall. Because all this happened, you know, on the ocean. Perhaps what we need is ocean walls! We could call Hadrian up, and ask him how walls function. Or, maybe Qin Shi Huang. Or, André Maginot. I'm sure they'd all offer sage advice.

Just curious, do you work by or on the Ocean and your experience is biased? Your name is Sailor Sam right?In medicine I see a lot of people on Medicaid having the latest headphones, iPhones, and drive nice cars. They are able bodied Americans who are cheating the system. I know that they don't represent the entire or even most of the Medicaid population even though in my line of work they seam to be a majority.

Sailor Sam, you are also one of those far left people who likes to jump out of nowhere and throw insults at those who disagree with you. Ok, I have donned my flame retardant suit. I'm ready for you.

A wall will not slow the flow of illegal immigrants into America, because a tiny tiny fraction of them cross the desert in the places that a wall would go. A wall will not stop the flow of drugs, which mostly come and go via main ports of entry, or ships.

I can attest that Sol is correct; exactly zero of the drugs and people I have interdicted would have been stopped by a wall. Because all this happened, you know, on the ocean. Perhaps what we need is ocean walls! We could call Hadrian up, and ask him how walls function. Or, maybe Qin Shi Huang. Or, André Maginot. I'm sure they'd all offer sage advice.

Just curious, do you work by or on the Ocean and your experience is biased? Your name is Sailor Sam right?

I don't understand the use of the world biased, and I'd like to ensure we're actually communicating. I'm an active duty officer for the United States Coast Guard, so my personal witnessing of illegal immigration is certainly limited to the ocean. I have NOT personally witnessed any illegal immigration across the southern border, and cannot personally testify as to the rates. Is that what what you were saying about me being biased? And by implication that I have no voice in discussing rates and origins of illegal immigration?

Assuming I'm correct, then my point wasn't that the ocean is the only way for illegal immigration to occur; rather I can attest that illegal immigration does occur, at a very nice clip, via the ocean. Which is why I was agreeing with @sol that a wall across the southern border will not stop the flow of drugs (or the assumed implication, illegals).

In medicine I see a lot of people on Medicaid having the latest headphones, iPhones, and drive nice cars. They are able bodied Americans who are cheating the system. I know that they don't represent the entire or even most of the Medicaid population even though in my line of work they seam to be a majority.

I understand you're trying to lay out an example of your biased point above, but I'm not following. Can you clarify?

Sailor Sam, you are also one of those far left people who likes to jump out of nowhere and throw insults at those who disagree with you. Ok, I have donned my flame retardant suit. I'm ready for you.

Well, one can never truly know what one's fellow man thinks of them; however I've been told that my overarching forum reputation is to genuinely seek communication. However, I'm not perfect, and I like to play with language. Sometimes I let my joy over getting in a clever word slip over the edge of politeness. If you care to point out where I've insulted someone, not just disagreed but actually name called, I will certainly consider offering apologies.

Though, I'm not particularly left, I'm in the military for God's sake.

A wall will not slow the flow of illegal immigrants into America, because a tiny tiny fraction of them cross the desert in the places that a wall would go. A wall will not stop the flow of drugs, which mostly come and go via main ports of entry, or ships.

I can attest that Sol is correct; exactly zero of the drugs and people I have interdicted would have been stopped by a wall. Because all this happened, you know, on the ocean. Perhaps what we need is ocean walls! We could call Hadrian up, and ask him how walls function. Or, maybe Qin Shi Huang. Or, André Maginot. I'm sure they'd all offer sage advice.

Just curious, do you work by or on the Ocean and your experience is biased? Your name is Sailor Sam right?In medicine I see a lot of people on Medicaid having the latest headphones, iPhones, and drive nice cars. They are able bodied Americans who are cheating the system. I know that they don't represent the entire or even most of the Medicaid population even though in my line of work they seam to be a majority.

Considering that you just posted misleading information about congressional pensions, and I remember several years ago having to also correct your lack of understanding about the differences between Medicare and Medicaid (and you supposedly a doctor!), then you might also consider your own potential biases and incomplete understanding before jumping to the conclusion that everyone with opinions that differ from yours must suffer from those flaws, while you do not. Certainly not everyone who disagrees with you is a far left liberal.

You mean because the government pensions are bailed out by tax hikes on workers, most who are not government workers themselves. The private industry can't take more of my tax dollars to pay their retirees the way the government does.

I'm sure you're aware that private industry gets government bailout money, and government pensions do not? When the federal pension program needs funds, it sells bonds. Your taxes do not support federal pensions.

By the reasoning you appear to be espousing, private industry shouldn't be getting bailout money, right? Like the $17billion that GM got, largely for pensions? Or the $85billion for AIG? Because those are literally your tax dollars being spent to bail out the gross mismanagement of private for-profit corporations. Unlike the federal pension system.

You're way understating it here @sol. Those examples miss the big one - the value of the TARP bailouts and the opportunity cost of the Fed providing below market interest rate loans to all the banks from 2007-2012.

Agreed! The wall is LONG overdue. Americans voted for Trump, and the wall was a HUGE point of his campaign.

The cost of a wall is peanuts compared to the estimated $10 TRILLION dollar cost of illegal immigration.

The liberal talking point is that the wall isn't the only solution and doesn't solve all of the problems. It's not supposed to. Those other things are also important as well, but they don't negate the necessity for the wall. I would gladly pay more taxes to build the wall and increase border security, enforce existing immigration law, and stepping up efforts to deport illegals. It sure beats the astronomical cost of illegal aliens over the long term who suck much more out of the system than they even begin to contribute (as shown by the Heritage study.)

I'm currently funded a few months in advance, so this one won't hurt me directly unless it extends into February, but the last furlough affected my entire program, and we had to replan the entire program due to a series of short delays in starting the program. It took over 25 man-months to reschedule and re-budget the program to still fit within the constraints. It is NOT a matter of just shifting everything a few weeks. That's $0.5Million just to replan. It doesn't count all the people waiting to hear what they can and cannot do under the new program. It's an extremely inefficient way to do business.

Ooh, look, an on-topic post! ;)

I am furloughed and it's annoying. Spring is my busy season with training and contract starts for field season. I need this time to prepare. The work doesn't decrease because I now have less time to do it.

On the bright side, I did get my kitchen deep-cleaned, repainted, and faucet installed.

As some others mentioned, this is really disruptive to contracts. I had a contractor working for me on a project for the last 19 months, ending today. As busy as I've been, I was counting on the three workdays after Christmas to make sure I understood everything he'd done, knew where all his files were stored, etc. Instead, we had 15 minutes to get his government property and a hand-wave about where everything was when we went in for shutdown procedures on the 26th. I've been trying to add some funds to his contract to write a manuscript for publication, but now that's screwed up, and he might be too busy by the time we get back to work, put all the contracts back into motion, and are able to address this one thing.

Another person working under me for the past two years was set to change to a new contract tomorrow. So she is sitting home now, and can't work on anything even though the contract is already paid for with last year's money, and is thoroughly familiar with the work that needs to be done. And she probably will go unpaid during this time, when she would much rather be working.

I spent today on the phone, trying to understand the circumstances my ship currently finds herself in.

SCENE: A small beige office aboard a big white ship of the long blue line. The ship is on the hairy edge of expiration for several critical inspections, and we must go to shipyard! Without shipyard we will all die, plus the schedule will be muppetfucked all the way into Tuesday. Shipyard is super, duper, uuuuper critical.

HOWEVER, no one is certain if the shipyard contract was actually completed before 0000 on Friday. Trouble! Much chaos over the entire Christmas break. Much sweating by the XO (your trusted and non-hyperbolic author)

THEN! A development rings out! The KO was un-furloughed just long enough to verify that the the contract was fully and legally completed. The ship will go to shipyard. Victory!

EXCEPT! The ship has no food. The ship does not have enough fuel to get from point A to point B. The only official who may authorize these purchases is the Deputy Undersecretary for Operations. Forth down from El Presidente.

CONCLUSION: your intrepid XO talked to the DUSO with his own voice, and felt very grown up. During each of the 6 calls I made in order to actually establish this lofty line of communication, I spoke to officers with whom I have history and bonhomie. Each all began with a polite "How is your shutdown going?", and ended with "We're not gettin' paid, but remember how much we love our country."

The reply was universal, and profaned my corpus in ways I dare not repeat and continue to claim upright propriety. But the tone, friends. The tone! Imagine Eeyore. Then imagine him a little more morose. A little more. Just a titch more. Just a nudge. There! That's the tone, exactly.

The tale might lose something in the retelling, but damn it was funny from my end. And it is a tale of the shutdown. I have done my job.

In other shutdown news, I had a national park vacation schedule for this week. I expected all of the visitor centers and bathrooms to be closed, but all of the parks I've been to have actually been locked, like at the gate. Yesterday at Guadalupe, the entrance gate was barred and there about a hundred cars parked along the side of the highway with families running across multiple lanes during breaks in the traffic. This is NOT SAFE. Why don't they just leave the gate open and let people use the nice turn lane, and then park in the huge parking lot a hundred yards away, where no one is going to get mowed down? There are still nature trails and such you can access without needing the visitor center to be open. By all means lock the buildings, but don't lock the gates to a park that I own.

I'm waiting for the national news to cover the first traffic fatality at a "closed" national park that decided to block safe access and put kids at risk of being mowed down by speeding cars. This is stupid.

It's interesting the way that different agencies have different takes on what "shut down" means. The Forest Service closes buildings and facilities, but doesn't bother trying to keep people out of the National Forests, whereas the Park Service takes the view that entire parks are closed to the public. But I guess that's because they have actual gates at most of the entrances.

I may be drifting a little off topic here, but I wanted to share some thoughts about how to end this shutdown crap permanently. A while back I posted a pie-in-the-sky wish list in the off-topic forum of all the things I want to do to fix America's problems. Here's my idea for shutdowns:

Quote

Stop Playing Political Games with the Budget and Debt Ceiling. For years Congress has failed to do its most basic job – establish the annual federal budget prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. On one occasion Congress chose to play a high-stakes game of financial “chicken” by threatening to default on the national debt instead of raising the debt ceiling to cover obligations that had already been incurred

Pass legislation (or amend the constitution if necessary) to accomplish the following:• Prohibit Congress from taking up any non-budget legislation, emergencies excepted, if the annual budget for the upcoming fiscal year has not passed by August 1. Prohibit Congress from going into recess for any reason until a budget has passed.• If the annual budget does not pass by the beginning of the fiscal year, automatically continue funding under a continuing resolution, thereby eliminating government shutdowns. Keep Congress in session without recess until the budget has passed. • Hold Congressional leadership in contempt if a budget is not in place when a session of Congress ends.• Increase the debt ceiling automatically if Congress does not do it in time to prevent a default.

In other shutdown news, I had a national park vacation schedule for this week. I expected all of the visitor centers and bathrooms to be closed, but all of the parks I've been to have actually been locked, like at the gate. Yesterday at Guadalupe, the entrance gate was barred and there about a hundred cars parked along the side of the highway with families running across multiple lanes during breaks in the traffic. This is NOT SAFE. Why don't they just leave the gate open and let people use the nice turn lane, and then park in the huge parking lot a hundred yards away, where no one is going to get mowed down? There are still nature trails and such you can access without needing the visitor center to be open. By all means lock the buildings, but don't lock the gates to a park that I own.

I'm waiting for the national news to cover the first traffic fatality at a "closed" national park that decided to block safe access and put kids at risk of being mowed down by speeding cars. This is stupid.

It's interesting the way that different agencies have different takes on what "shut down" means. The Forest Service closes buildings and facilities, but doesn't bother trying to keep people out of the National Forests, whereas the Park Service takes the view that entire parks are closed to the public. But I guess that's because they have actual gates at most of the entrances.

You can’t really close the forests. In Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, the main east-west road runs through the Hiawatha National Forest.

Monkey Uncle, pragmatically I think we could do a much better job of avoiding shutdowns than we do currently if we just had a different definition of essential vs non-essential functions.

If air traffic controllers got sent home in the event of a shutdown (and commercial air travel shut down whenever the government got within 24 hours of a shutdown to avoid last minute disasters), I imagine congress would be under a lot more pressure to avoid shutdowns from the sorts of folks with sufficient money and power influence that they'd actually be listened to. It would also have meant that in this particular case congress would have been stranded in DC over the holidays rather than being able to go home and visit their families.